Facet Questions

[Jenius]

I have a couple of quetions regarding facets.

1: For Die facets, if you had 2 or more on of the same type, would their death triggers all happen? Ergo, if I had a barb who was duel wielding 6 socketed weapons and he had lightning facets everywhere, (6+6+4+3=19 total) if I died, would all 19 of the facets shoot their level 47 chain lightning?

2. Do the facet percent modifiers effect their own attacks upon death? Ergo, would the lightning from a light facet be amplified and have the target's resistance lowered from the attack?

3. If I was a sorc, would lightning master/synergies of chain lightning work with a lightning die facet?

I just thought it would be fun to kind of build a kamakazi character, and I was just wondering how effective stacking a bunch of light (or maybe cold, but blizzard seems unreliable against range) facets.

[Evrae Altana]

1. No. The chances would stack giving 1900% chance to cast on death, which is not different than 100%, and only one CL would be fired.
2. Yes
3. Yes

[Jenius]

1. No. The chances would stack giving 1900% chance to cast on death, which is not different than 100%, and only one CL would be fired.
2. Yes
3. Yes
For 1 is that how all percentages work in the game? As in, they add as opposed to simply creating seperate triggers with individual percentages? If so D2 percentages are wierd, because quite obviously stacking two 50% things (such as the chance to get heads when flipping a coin) does not net one a 100% chance of something happening.

[krischan]

The percentages of casting the same spell of the same level on the same condition are added and can only lead to the spell being cast once, else they are determined separately and can lead to a spell being cast multiple times or not at all.

[thegiantturtle]

For 1 is that how all percentages work in the game? As in, they add as opposed to simply creating seperate triggers with individual percentages? If so D2 percentages are wierd, because quite obviously stacking two 50% things (such as the chance to get heads when flipping a coin) does not net one a 100% chance of something happening.You're not looking at it properly. You don't have 2 coins. You have one coin with variable weighting. It started off with 0% chance of heads. One item changed it to 50% chance of heads and the second item changed it to 100% chance of heads. When you get stat bonuses and resistance bonuses, you expect them to stack with your other stats and resistances, so why would chance to cast skills not stack as well?

[Jenius]

You're not looking at it properly. You don't have 2 coins. You have one coin with variable weighting. It started off with 0% chance of heads. One item changed it to 50% chance of heads and the second item changed it to 100% chance of heads. When you get stat bonuses and resistance bonuses, you expect them to stack with your other stats and resistances, so why would chance to cast skills not stack as well?
I just always figured the chance to cast worked seperatly as would make sense.

Take for an example a person wearing two rings, now lets say for this example that one ring had a 10% chance to cast a level 10 nova on striking, and the other had a 10% chance to cast a level 10 frost nova on striking, this nets an 81 percent chance of neither happening and a 1 percent chance of both happening. Why should this change because both have the same spell on them? It seems both more mathematicly correct as well as better asthetics wise (it would look pretty nice to have multiple triggers off the same attack) and honestly it just makes more sense programming wise. If the striking occurs, check for all (% chance on striking) triggers, roll each trigger and apply it's effect if it suceeds. Rather than when striking occurs, check for all % chance on striking, add all identical ones together, roll for the new percentages then apply their effect if it succeded.

[thegiantturtle]

I just always figured the chance to cast worked seperatly as would make sense.That's a personal decision of what makes more sense. My basis of reasoning is outlined below.

Why should this change because both have the same spell on them?Because they're the same property as opposed to different properties. The sum of 10n and 10b is 10n+10b. The sum of 10n and 10n is 20n.

It seems both more mathematicly correct as well as better asthetics wise (it would look pretty nice to have multiple triggers off the same attack) and honestly it just makes more sense programming wise. If the striking occurs, check for all (% chance on striking) triggers, roll each trigger and apply it's effect if it suceeds. Rather than when striking occurs, check for all % chance on striking, add all identical ones together, roll for the new percentages then apply their effect if it succeded.Your assumptions are incorrect. Mainly, each separate chance to cast skill X at level Y is stored in one location. If multiple items have the same property, they are summed in that location upon equipping of the item. This cuts down on the total number of checks and also on memory management. On top of that, this is how all other properties in the game work, so it makes sense to maintain the same process.

From the Math side of it. First, the way they have implemented it makes more mathematical sense than your idea. It's the basic idea of summation of like terms. 2a + 3b + 3a = 5a + 3b. That's all that's happening here. 1 event is occurring, you have 2 of the same property, so why would you check the properties separately (like it was two separate events)? Second, If you really wanted to do that, then chance to cast on hit properties should only work if it was that item that was hit. Increased attack speed and damage on belts would do nothing. This is a fantasy game. All properties in the game stack.

[Jenius]

Only problem is basic addition =/= adding percentages...

I understand that it does stack as if it were, but no amount of fake variebles is going to deter the above statement :P.

I guess what makes sense is all a matter of opinion, but considering I <3 math, what makes sense to me is math being done correctly.

Edit: Just read the rest of your posts, I kinda initially stopped at the bad algebra comparison. Faster attack speed is different, of courseit stacks because it's not a % of something happening, it's simply a static increase. It would be like "Joe initially had 1 dollar, Bill and Bob both gave Joe an extra 50% of his initial amount of money, Joe now has 2 dollars".

Triggers from Chance to cast stuff are "If x happens, check y, if y succeeds, z happens". Not simply "Increase x by y percent."

[thegiantturtle]

Only problem is basic addition =/= adding percentages...

I understand that it does stack as if it were, but no amount of fake variebles is going to deter the above statement :P.

I guess what makes sense is all a matter of opinion, but considering I <3 math, what makes sense to me is math being done correctly.

Edit: Just read the rest of your posts, I kinda initially stopped at the bad algebra comparison. Faster attack speed is different, of courseit stacks because it's not a % of something happening, it's simply a static increase. It would be like "Joe initially had 1 dollar, Bill and Bob both gave Joe an extra 50% of his initial amount of money, Joe now has 2 dollars".

Triggers from Chance to cast stuff are "If x happens, check y, if y succeeds, z happens". Not simply "Increase x by y percent."My math is done correctly. What specifically do you have a problem with? Could you spell it out and bring evidence to refute it instead of vague general statements? I also suggest you reread my post again. The logic seems pretty infallible.

[krischan]

Jenius, regard it as wrong information in the item description. It should read "+xx% bonus to the chance to cast xx" instead :azn:

[Jenius]

My math is done correctly. What specifically do you have a problem with? Could you spell it out and bring evidence to refute it instead of vague general statements? I also suggest you reread my post again. The logic seems pretty infallible.
Your post essentially converted combining % chance to happen things in a certain situation to combining light terms in algebra, which is quite obviously (flip two coins anyone?) not how they work. It may be what diablo 2 does, but that doesn't make it mathematically right.

My "problem" was you trying to tell me that the system in d2 (which I understand how it works now and am thankful for that) was treating percent chance to happens like algebraic variebles and that this made perfect sense somehow.

Really, all you did was get caught in my ramblings directed at noone and more at my dislike to see gross errors in math passed off as perfectly ok.

And thanks krischan, that does indeed make more sense.

[thegiantturtle]

Your post essentially converted combining % chance to happen things in a certain situation to combining light terms in algebra, which is quite obviously (flip two coins anyone?) not how they work.We're not flipping 2 coins. We're flipping one coin, just changing it's weight. There are certain times in math when you can combine percentages. I can recommend a couple statistics books if you like.

My "problem" was you trying to tell me that the system in d2 (which I understand how it works now and am thankful for that) was treating percent chance to happens like algebraic variebles and that this made perfect sense somehow.What I did was correctly model the system that is used. When it's correctly modeled, it makes sense. You had the system incorrectly modeled, so you found a problem.

Really, all you did was get caught in my ramblings directed at noone and more at my dislike to see gross errors in math passed off as perfectly ok.Like you, I hate when math is improperly applied. I've had long discussions about probability in various threads (ex: probability to find a second zod rune after finding one, probability of mulitple keys in one drop, etc...). Here, you were complaining about the math being incorrect, when it was really your model that was incorrect. I thought you would appreciate the correction.

In summation, there were no errors in calculations, just errors in underlying assumptions. You assumed each property on each item should be taken as a separate event. That is how you personally defined it. This was based on your own subjective ideas. If your assumption had been true, then there would have been a gross mathematical error. I agree. It just so happens that you made an incorrect assumption. In this model, all properties are summed.

When you were told your assumption was wrong, you could have assimilated the new information. Instead you just ignored it and continued along. If you refuse to believe a true premise of an argument, then you will always have a problem with the conclusion.

[Jenius]

But each property of an item is inherently taken as a second effect, as in my first example one would not combine frost nova with nova in dicating the odds but rather would treat them how real probability works, there is no reason to believe the changing the spell released would suddenly effect the odds of it happening (like it does if you do indeed stack the same spell of the same level) unless it's worded like krischan suggested. It makes no sense to say "Welp because you have both a 10% chance to cast frost nova and nova upon striking, you have a 81 percent chance of nothing happening, however if you changed that frost nova to nova, magically, you'd have 80 percent chance of nothing happening now." Odds are dictated by percentages, they are not dictated by what the percentages happen to be of.

My assumption is correct given the specific wording of the item. To see that, see my initial frost nova/nova argument. Had the wording been as krischan said, indeed the light terms could be combined and my initial assumption would have been incorrect, but as each individual item does indeed say it's percent to cast upon striking and not what kirschan said, my assumption was right, not wrong.

krischan is correct in what the wording should have been (or at least something to that effect) to create the type of percentages they actually use.

[thegiantturtle]

But each property of an item is inherently taken as a second effectTwo things are wrong with this statement. First, if you get +strength from both a prefix and a suffix, it's two different properties, but it's summed on that item and treated as one effect. Second, we're not talking about 1 item, we're talking about 2 items. You're changing the playing field.

as in my first example one would not combine frost nova with nova in dicating the odds but rather would treat them how real probability works, there is no reason to believe the changing the spell released would suddenly effect the odds of it happening (like it does if you do indeed stack the same spell of the same level) unless it's worded like krischan suggested. It makes no sense to say "Welp because you have both a 10% chance to cast frost nova and nova upon striking, you have a 81 percent chance of nothing happening, however if you changed that frost nova to nova, magically, you'd have 80 percent chance of nothing happening now." Odds are dictated by percentages, they are not dictated by what the percentages happen to be of.Your example actually explains my point. 10% chance of frost nova and a 10% chance of nova would be 10a + 10b. You can't combine these. A 10% chance of nova + 10% chance of nova is 10b + 10b. You can combine these. In the first case, they can't be combined because they are different terms. In the second case, they are the same term and can be combined. It's not that he has two separate 10% chances to cast nova, it's that he has 2 bonuses to his chance to cast nova.

My assumption is correct given the specific wording of the item. To see that, see my initial frost nova/nova argument. Had the wording been as krischan said, indeed the light terms could be combined and my initial assumption would have been incorrect, but as each individual item does indeed say it's percent to cast upon striking and not what kirschan said, my assumption was right, not wrong.The English language is a very complicated beast. You chose one valid interpretation of the property. The problem is, it was not the same as the valid interpretation used by the game. We can debate back and forth whose interpretation meshes better with other statements in the game, but the fact is that both interpretations are valid English. Because both are valid, you can't assume yours is correct and then rave that they are saying things wrong. The interpretation I laid out is just as valid, and when we follow it, we see that math is applied appropriately.

I'll give you an example of this in mathematical concepts. It's like they said, "we're going to use Geometry for this situation." Then, they draw out one line and 7 other lines parallel to it that all go through the same point. You look at it and say, "hey, you're breaking the 5th axiom of Geometry!" You're completely right... if they're using Euclidean Geometry. The problem is that they didn't say they were using Euclidean Geometry, they just said Geometry. Hyberbolic Geometry is described by denying the 5th axiom of Euclidean Geometry. You then say "well, they never said Hyperbolic Geometry, so my interpretation is right!" They didn't say what kind of geometry at all, so you can't assume it's Euclidean. Before they started working, you couldn't tell if they were using Neutral Geometry, Euclidean Geometry, or Hyperbolic Geometry. You just happened to assume Euclidean Geometry. The second they drew something denying the 5th axiom, you could have known they were in Hyperbolic Geometry and changed your perspective. Instead, you continued on in Euclidean Geometry.

The absense of detail describing one path is not enough reason to infer another path was intended. The description was neutral. You went with interpretation A, but they used interpretation B.


EDIT: If you haven't taken a college level Geometry class, let me know and I'll try to come up with a simpler parallel example.

[Jenius]

Your example actually explains my point. 10% chance of frost nova and a 10% chance of nova would be 10a + 10b. You can't combine these. A 10% chance of nova + 10% chance of nova is 10b + 10b. You can combine these. In the first case, they can't be combined because they are different terms. In the second case, they are the same term and can be combined. It's not that he has two separate 10% chances to cast nova, it's that he has 2 bonuses to his chance to cast nova.

If the items were worded in krischan's way this would be right, but they arn't. It says absolutly nothing about adding to your static previously 0 percent chance to cast something when something else happens. It doesn't even have a + symbol. None, at all. Just lists the percent chance of something happening in a givin situation.

It is not mathematicly correct to add two percentages together like you are doing, I'm not really sure why you keep passing the addition of two "percent chance to happens" off as simple algebra, because math just doesn't work that way. Period. No ifs ands or buts. Math, physics, etc they all tie equations and numbers to what really happens in real life. As can be demonstrated by flipping a coin a couple of times, A flip that has 50% chance to get heads + another flip 50% chance to get heads DOES NOT = 100% chance to get heads. And this isn't a battle of semantics either, the game clearly words the items "x% chance to cast y upon striking" which is identical to "50% chance to land heads upon flipping" there is a percent chance that something happens after a previous trigger (striking or flipping the coin) has happened. Adding an aditional trigger from a different item would abide mathematically just like a real life situation would, two 10 percent chances would yield an 81% chance of both of them failing, and this is true for the game except when both of the "percent chance to cast y upon striking" have identical y's. At this point, the game adds, even though in reality, that simply isn't true.

Your comparison to weighting a coin is innacurate because a 10% chance to cast frost nova on one ring and a 10% chance to cast nova on the different ring follow the real rules of mathematics. This makes the weighting a coin comparison innacurate, because it simply is illogical to have one situation where one combines two percentages and one situation where one works it out as normal. Think of nova as a nickel and frost nova as a quarter. Say they both had a 50% chance of happening. Now when the game sees you strike and checks to see what all happens, both the nickel and the quarter are flipped, whichever is heads applies, and everything works as it mathematically should. If you switch the nova to a frost nova, the logical step would be to change a nickel to a quarter and flip two quarters, not take a away the nickel and rig the quarter in some odd fashion to make it always land heads up.

Honestly, I just stopped reading your post after the horrible algebra comparison. You can't simply treat percentages like a varieble and combine light terms, math doesn't work that way.

Maybe you should read this part again - "Welp because you have both a 10% chance to cast frost nova and nova upon striking, you have a 81 percent chance of nothing happening, however if you changed that frost nova to nova, magically, you'd have 80 percent chance of nothing happening now."

Odds. Do. Not. Work. That. Way. And I really grow tired of you trying to say otherwise. I don't mean to grow short with you, but this is trying my patience, even krischan noted that the wording was wrong for the effect it granted, stop trying to defend something that wasn't even your mistake. You seem really smart and I am glad you initially helped me but forcing me to repeat previously unanswered arguments always grinds my gears :tongue:.

Edit: Oh and your first statement makes no sense at all, I was talking about multiple items, not a single one.... I worded it a bit weird, but I was still talking about two sets of percentages each on different objects.

Edit 2: The most recent math I have completed is second quarter calculus at college, I wish I was farther along but that was only my junior year in highschool :/.

Edit 3: If you really still believe that with the current wording, how it calculates percentages is correct, then I give up. I don't mind debating but when we both sound like broken records there just isn't going to be much of a point to it.

[thegiantturtle]

Jenius, since you said you're getting frustrated, I'll try to move into new ground. Please look at this with an open mind. I'm only going through this because you seem like you're very advanced and do seriously care about math. You probably won't be taught how to look at math like this until at least Real Analysis. Alot of people don't really pick it up until a second real analysis class or when they move into Abstract Algebra or other advanced topics. The ones that can't get their head around the paradigm switch (pretty much everything you've been told as fact in math is really just one tiny piece of one interpretation of one little realm of math) tend to switch out. Some like the real 3-D world and become physicists. Some like their numbers and become accountants and statiscians. Some run to Computer Science and complain to holy hell about algorithms. Anyway, the basic math progression is
Calc 1
Calc 2
Calc 3 (Multivariable) AND Linear Algebra intro AND Diff EQ intro
Real Analysis intro
More Real Analysis AND advanced topicsso you have a couple years before the system wises up and starts teaching you properly. I really think the whole math teaching system in grade school should be completely overhauled for the students who can handle it. 13 to 15 years of teaching one topic without ever giving the big picture is just silly. Also, if this doesn't click for you, it's probably at least my fault as yours. Let me know if there is anything that needs more explaining or anything I could have said better.

Edit: Oh and your first statement makes no sense at all, I was talking about multiple items, not a single one.... I worded it a bit weird, but I was still talking about two sets of percentages each on different objects.<offtopic rant>You actually worded it as one item with multiple properties. It wasn't weird wording, it was incorrect wording.But each property of an item is inherently taken as a second effect<snip>The "each property" is referring to "an item." Your words are talking about the item in the singular. It would have been inappropriate on my part to take it as meaning multiple items.</rant>

Now that I know what you meant, I can respond to it properly. If you have 1 item with property X and a second item with property X, the second property is NOT inherently a second effect. In your model it is. In the math you've been taught, you expect it to be. In reality, it's not. In the proper model, it's not. Explanation follows.

You seem to have learned in your math classes (and physics classes) the importance of accurately modeling your situation. A mathematical formula is only correct if it is set up properly in the situation. That's the complaint you've been having with my work. "You can't add percentages like that! You're applying the formula wrong!" So far, all the math you have learned has been in one system. All your modeling has been inside that system. You learned how point and line are defined, a few axioms, and then worked in Geometry. You learned the number line and cartesian coordinate system, and then worked in algebra. In actuality, It's possible to define point and line completely differently to model geometries that do not exist in the physical world. The number line you learned is based off set theory and a handful of axioms. It's not the one true way. If those axioms are modified, you can create whole new systems of algebra (and Calculus).

I think a quick Real Analysis 2 intro might help you out. The Number line as you know it is denoted as R-1 (Real Numbers in 1 dimension). The Cartesian coordinate system is R-2. We normally think of our 3 dimensional world as R-3. This can be explained out to any number of dimensions with the notation R-n. All these spaces are examples of Normal Spaces. One of the properties of Normal Spaces is that the distance formula is very similar to one you are used to. For example:
In R-1, the difference between two points X1 and X2 is
X2-X1
In R-2, the distance between two points (X1, Y1) and (X2,Y2) is
sqrt( (x2-x1)^2 + (y2 - y1)^2 ). Instead of working in normal spaces, we can work in metric spaces. Metric spaces are to normal spaces as parrallelograms are to squares. All R-n spaces are Normal Spaces and all Normal Spaces are Metric Spaces. I can define a metric space such that the difference formula works like this:
In 1 dimentions, the difference between two points X1 and X2 is
0 {if X1 = X2)
1 (if X1 <> X2)
In 2 dimentions, the difference between two points (X1,Y1) and (X2,Y2)
0 {if (X1,Y1) = (X2,Y2))
1 (if (X1,Y1) <> (X2,Y2)) As you can see basic math is going to work out much different in this basic metric space I created. If I walked up to you on the street and told you the difference between a point at (2,3) on a graph and (87, 0) on the graph was 1, you'd tell me I was completely wrong. That's because you would naturally assume we were working in R-2. It's what we all know and are conditioned to expect. If I was working in the metric space above, then I would be correct. Without specifying either way, you cannot necessarily assume we are in R-2. When I specifically tell you, we are not in R-2, we're in this metric space, then you need to change your perspective and work in this metric space as well.

In the case of diablo, we are not in the real world. Not only do we not have to map to the real world, we should not assume we need to be using physical constraints as the basis for our model. We should be using the diablo system as the basis of our model. We have to define character properties appropriately. In any model, we can set up defined terms however we want to. That's valid math. Once we've set up our terms, we can apply algebra, statistics, calculus, etc.. in our new system. That's completely valid.

In the diablo world, each different property is stored in a different location. Any duplicate properties, are added to the original property. This is inherent to the diablo world. This is how the terms are defined and model is set up. It doesn't matter if the property is +10 strength or 20% Chance of Crushing Blow. In the first case we add 10 to the property strength. In the second case, we add 20 to the property "% Chance of Crushing Blow." Our property is not "20% Chance of Crushing Blow" that we have to create a spot for. Our property is not "Crushing Blow" that we need to add 20% chance to. Does that make sense. We have to define the terms properly for the system. The most common usage of a defined term has no place in Math.

Edit 3: If you really still believe that with the current wording, how it calculates percentages is correct, then I give up. I don't mind debating but when we both sound like broken records there just isn't going to be much of a point to it.I agree with you. With the current wording, in your system, percentages are calculated incorrectly. With the current wording, in the appropriate system, percentages are calculated properly.

I apologize in advance if I overstep my bounds here. I am only saying this to be helpful. On a personal note, You seem to have picked up a fair amount of arrogance. It comes with the territory (being light years ahead of your "peer group"). My Calc 2 class in High School was taught by a teacher who hadn't taught past Calc 1 ever (25 years of experience). I ended up having to teach it to everyone around me, and my already high arrogance level increased by an order of magnitude or two. It took a while for me to learn that the less arrogance you show, the better it is. People are more willing to share ideas with you and it is easier to communicate with other parties. I still have problems with this, but I work on it and wish I had worked on it sooner. In this thread, you kept hammering your knowledge home. You knew X, Y, and Z and there's no way around it. You wouldn't let yourself see that, hey, this guy also knows his stuff pretty well, too, and he's saying that X,Y, and Z aren't always true. Maybe I should try to listen to him and see why he's saying that. I had some knowledge you were not yet exposed to. I was trying my best to explain it (though, some of my arrogance probably slipped through as well) Hopefully the nuclear approach I took in this post managed it.

[Jenius]

And yes I know there are different ways to define the same thing, I've done cal 2, which means I know both the Cartesian coordinate system and the one with the theta and r value I'm currently spacing on (polar if I recall correctly, but it's nearly 2:30 am and I'm tired). Granted, both these systems say the same thing in a different way, but to someone who doesn't know the polar system, it probably looks like gibberish.

Your argument would be all fine and dandy except for really one thing.

Strength clearly stacks through addition because an item that grants strength say "+x strength"

Things like faster attack speed, block rate, chance to block, etc all either have a + sign or a word that ends in ____er (ergo faster) or uses the word increased, implying that it is increasing an already present thing, thus addition is allowed.

Percent chance of something happening when a certain trigger is met is however worded differently than all of the other things. No + sign is used, no hint at all that there is a static previously 0 percentage that these new things simply add to is given at any point in one of the sentences. The only reasonable assumption one could possibly draw from looking at the different percentages is that they are indeed all treated as separate triggers and they work like regular old run of the mill odds do in real life.

Now in the diablo system, they don't work that way, but simply because they don't work that way doesn't make the wording any less incorrect. That would be like me making a simple mistake along the lines of 1+ 2 = 0 and then when I was told I was wrong, simply telling people that "But in Jenius math, that would be a correct equation therefor I'm not wrong". I suppose one could argue that I wasn't wrong because my own personal math actually worked that way, but I think it would make more sense to assume that I was using regular math unless I listed otherwise.

The wording, read by anybody who has even a grasp of how percentages work in the real world should be interpretted just as I did, separate triggers, separate checks, separate results, how regular run of the mill odds work. Diablo 2 may not work that way, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be interpreted that way.

I suppose I'm going to have to slightly alter my argument from "incorrect" as it's impossible to prove something like this to be wrong (damn you basic logics class, damn you to hell) to "needlessly confusing to a point where it should be worded differently". There is no plus symbol or any hint there is a base value being added to, so the laws of common sense would dictate that we treat two 10% triggers as if they were two separate 1d10 proverbial die that were rolled each time the event was trigged and not as something that could be combined into 1d5. However, the game doesn't work that way, therefor the wording it uses is misleading.

It would be like telling someone the temperature in degrees C in America without mentioning that the number you just gave them was Celsius, while you were indeed correct, your wording was incorrect because you mislead the person into thinking the number you just gave them was Fahrenheit.

And finally, course I'm arrogant, I'll be finishing cal 3, diff eq and linear algebra up this coming school year, that is to say, before I even start college, not many people can say that.